See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233330147

Criteria for Qualitative Research in

Psychology

Article in Qualitative Research in Psychology · January 2004

DOI: 10.1191/1478088704qp010oa

CITATIONS READS

85 1,036

1 author:

Ian Parker
University of Leicester
215 PUBLICATIONS 3,965 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lacanian Discourse Analysis View project

Psicanálise e Análise de Discurso View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian Parker on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x] Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9

www.QualResearchPsych.com Qualitative Research in Psychology 2004; 1: 1
/12

Criteria for qualitative research in

psychology
Ian Parker
Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Elizabeth
Gaskell Campus, Hathersage Road, Manchester M13 0JA, UK

F
This paper, designed for supervisors of qualitative research projects, and

O
addressed to students to enable to think through how they may be
evaluated, reviews some problems in the formulation of criteria for
qualitative research in the discipline and issues that are important for

O
the generation and paradigmatic framing of open flexible criteria. The
guidelines that are presented here are developed as an attempt to explicate

PR
the parameters of criteria, rather than closing down future innovative work.
Ten key points are elaborated ‘under erasure’ (that the study should be
objective, valid, reliable, neutral, confirmed, definitive, established,
coherent, accessible and psychological) and core principles of
‘apprenticeship’, ‘scholarship’ and ‘innovation’ are designed to open the
D
way for good research to go beyond these criteria. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 2004; 1: 1
/12
TE

Key words: criteria; exceptions; innovation; paradigms; rules

EC

Introduction Some of the most innovative studies in

quantitative research have broken the rules
Qualitative research in psychology poses of accepted scientific inquiry, and it has
R

questions about the nature of ‘criteria’ that been through awareness that something
need to be reflexively embedded in any radically different was being undertaken
R

alternative guidelines. and an argument for what was new that

Two problems with fixed ‘criteria’ should progress has been possible (Salmon, 2003).
O

be noted. First, most traditional quantitative It would be reasonable to ask that quantita-
psychological research does not adhere to tive research should also justify itself
C

the criteria it desires, and in many cases it against the issues raised here. Secondly,
would be very difficult to insist that it does. criteria of any kind risks legitimating cer-
N

Correspondence: Ian Parker, Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Manchester Metropolitan
U

University, Elizabeth Gaskell Campus, Hathersage Road, Manchester M13 0JA, UK.
E-mail: i.a.parker@mmu.ac.uk

# Arnold 2004 10.1191/1478088704qp010oa

 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x]
2 I Parker
tain varieties of qualitative research, mar-
ginalizing others, and so stifling new meth-
odological developments (Elliott et al .,
1999). That is why I explicate some para-
meters for research and emphasize that the
key question that the researcher should
explicate for themselves and perhaps even
indicate to their readers is ‘by what should I
be judged?’
An appeal to different distinctive criteria
is one way of warranting the range of
innovative ways of going about research.
For students the criteria elaborated in this
paper will draw attention to issues that they
might consider as they formulate their
research and prepare it for evaluation. For
supervisors these guidelines could serve to
provide enough common ground between
psychologists carrying out qualitative or
quantitative research, but this common
ground can only be secured on the under-
standing that some flexibility and negotia-
tion is needed so that both students and
supervisors can formulate their own parti-
cular procedures for describing, explaining
and justifying what they have done. So, the
criteria for good research are guidelines that
are closed enough to guide evaluation and
open enough to enable transformation of
EC
assumptions.
These descriptions of ‘criteria’, then,
should be read as flexible guidelines or
touchstones and they are made as explicit
R
as possible here as part of the process of
making transparent the reasons and ways
R
we go about doing research and the reasons
and ways we judge, and ask others to judge
O
its value.
C
Four key issues in the formulation of
N
criteria
U
The process of making research questions
and their evaluation transparent within
Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9
(and beyond) the psychological community
and exploring what they may mean is more
important here than fixing meanings and
then refusing reinterpretation. Accordingly,
there are four key issues that qualitative
researchers in psychology do need to ad-
dress.
. The first is an awareness of the difference
between qualitative approaches and tra-
ditional quantitative research. There are
historical divisions between the two ap-
F
proaches, and this has led some of the
discussion of supervision of undergradu-
O
ate qualitative research as a sometimes
marginalized speciality, with recommen-
O
dations put forward as to which particu-
lar methods might be easier to
PR
incorporate in teaching in the discipline
(e.g., Gough et al ., 2003). There is also a
history of argument over the ‘paradigm’
that should govern psychological re-
search (Harré, 2004), an issue covered in
Box 1
D
. Secondly, there is a range of resources
TE
qualitative researchers have drawn upon
to develop alternative methods. Some of
the most valuable of these resources are
outside the discipline. Feminist debates
about how we produce knowledge have
been crucial to critical reflections on
science, and have huge consequences
for qualitative research (e.g., Hartsock,
1987). Qualitative research outside psy-
chology, the best of which has been
heavily influenced by feminism, has
also led to different varieties of ‘construc-
tionist’ criteria that challenge main-
stream psychology (e.g., Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000).
. The third issue is explicit consideration
of the way criteria should be understood
in a particular case. There is no overall
set of criteria that would work to justify a
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x]
specific study, for a new research ques-
tion calls for a new rationale and combi-
nation of methodological resources to
explore it, and the terms in which a
research question is framed will entail
particular methods. And the best re-
search entails an innovation not only
with respect to the topic but also with
respect to the methodology that will be
appropriate to address it. The problem of
how to legitimize existing research can-
not be solved by constructed an iron grid
that will thereby invalidate all the new
things that will be developed later on
(Capdevila, 2003).
. Fourthly, there is a requirement that the
researcher gives an account of the ways
in which the research relates specifically
to psychology. The problem that needs to
be grasped here is that psychology as a
discipline has historically defined itself
with reference to methodology more than
by the objects or topics of research (Rose,
1985). Now it is necessary to find a way
to open up new ways of thinking about
the domain of the ‘psychological’
/
perhaps by refocusing on such things as
‘experience’, ‘subjectivity’ or ‘interac-
tion’
/ so that methodologies we develop
EC
follow from the research question.
This paper addresses those four issues in
relation to how we might think about the
R
‘criteria’ for good research.
R


O
Paradigmatic framing / options and
exclusions
C
It is worthwhile reminding ourselves about
N
some of the ways in which assumptions that
underpin quantitative research are inap-
U
propriate to qualitative studies. This is not
at all to say that qualitative researchers are
Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9
Criteria for qualitative research in psychology 3
uninterested in quantitative research. In
fact, the questioning of assumptions that
underpin much quantitative psychology has
been going on in the field of social statistics
for many years (e.g., Dorling and Simpson,
1999) and some of us would like to see good
quantitative research in psychology take
these debates on board. There are three
main issues here.
First, it is possible to see ‘objectivity’
as something that is constructed, sometimes
for very good reasons. This construction
F
of objectivity does not mean that some
views of the world are not better than
O
others, but it does mean that we cannot
take a seemingly objective account for
O
granted. The most important issue here is
that with respect to psychological research,
PR
the person carrying out the research always
has a certain stance toward the questions
that are being explored. Hunches,
intuitions, hopes and assumptions about
the nature of human beings all play a role
D
in the apparently ‘objective’ pursuit of a
psychologist. This position
/ whether
TE
as empathic involvement or studied detach-
ment
/ is a form of subjectivity (Hollway,
1999). This is why qualitative researchers
often prefer to work with subjectivity
rather than against it (which is what we
take quantitative researchers often to
be doing when they say they are being
objective).
Secondly, qualitative researchers see
‘validity’ as resting on a mistaken view
that different ways of representing phenom-
ena will necessarily be representing
the same thing. It is all the more the case
with psychological research that the
particular standpoint we have towards
other people, and what we expect them to
be like, will make every description we
give open to challenge. The claim that
qualitative researchers are describing the
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x]
4 I Parker
‘same thing’ is to close down the possible
alternative ways of describing experience,
even leaving aside for the moment
the difficult question as to whether we
should simply respect the accounts that
someone gives of their own experience or
whether the reasons people do things can be
made transparent to the researcher (Night-
ingale and Cromby, 1999). This is why
qualitative researchers often prefer to
explore the various different ways of de-
scribing an issue.
Thirdly, traditionally ‘reliability’ is seen
as taking for granted that our objects
of study remain stable over time rather
than being liable to change. This is an
assumption underlying conceptions
of method in psychology that is closely
linked to deeper assumptions about
the importance of ‘consistency’ and ‘ration-
ality’ in western psychology. But some
forms of research, action research, make
that process of change the very topic that
is focussed upon, and there is an explicit
attempt to make sure that things do not stay
the same (Kagan and Burton, 2000).
The lesson of community empowerment
work and ‘prefigurative’ action research for
EC
psychology is not so much that change can
occur, but that it is happening all the time.
This is why good qualitative research often
R
focuses on change and traces a process,
rather than treating patterns of human
R
behaviour or thinking as things that are
fixed.
O
These perspectives on ‘objectivity’, ‘va-
lidity’ and ‘reliability’, of course, raise
C
questions for the kind of positivist science
that has been popular with psychologists
N
because it makes it seem as if stable facts
about people can be accumulated and then
U
taken for granted for further study by an
objective researcher.
Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9
Conceptual resources
care

/ handled with
Some of the conceptual resources qualita-
tive researchers have used will be appro-
priate for future research, but we also need
to take into account the particular ways in
which they may be helpful or unhelpful
depending on each study. These resources
do not of themselves solve problems in
research. Rather, qualitative researchers
take them seriously because of the addi-
F
tional fruitful questions they raise.
First, the claim to be ‘neutral’ in research
O
is one that sustains a particular standpoint
and to prevent the standpoint from being
O
opened to question. In contrast, a qualita-
tive researcher may address subjectivity,
PR
exploring emotional investments in the
topic, focusing on the position of the
researcher, and making our moral-political
standpoint clear (Wilkinson, 1988). A
reflexive analysis in a report can serve to
D
help the reader understand something more
about the work. This is sometimes included
TE
in the report as one of the subsections of the
‘analysis’ and marked as ‘reflexive analysis’
or put in the discussion as part of a
reflection on the process of carrying out
the research (or both). This is the place
to consider the passionate interests that
drive some of the best research (Maso,
2003). However, this attempt to question
the ostensible neutrality of the research can
be tackled in what some might see
as ‘confessional’ mode (in which there is a
story about the researcher’s journey into the
research and how they felt about it), but
it may also be tackled by giving an account
of the institutional background for the
formulation and representation of what the
research is about. That is, the ‘position
of the researcher’ is a question of institu-
tional reflexivity that draws attention
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x] Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9

Criteria for qualitative research in psychology 5

Box 1. Where are we now with science?

Psychologists sometimes argue that only quantitative research is properly ‘scientific’, or

that qualitative research should be evaluated against the kind of criteria that have
usually been employed to assess quantitative research. However, these arguments can
just as well be turned around to put the quantitative researchers on the spot. In a recent
article, the philosopher of science Rom Harré (2004), for example, argues that it is
qualitative research that is properly scientific, and that it is only in relation to
methodological debates in that strand of work that we can start to explore how
quantitative research might measure up to it. The relevant elements of Harré’s argument
are the following.

F
1) Reflexivity
/ the particular object of study for any science needs to be carefully
specified. Qualitative research takes seriously a crucial aspect of the nature of its

O
object of study, human action and experience. The human being is able to reflect on
its behaviour and to engage in second-level reflection on those reflections. This is

O
why the reflexive work of the researcher is also a crucial part of any genuine
scientific study.

PR
2) Meaning
/ the nature of the material that is studied by a science needs to be
understood. Qualitative research focuses on the way in which meaningful qualities
of human ‘experience’ or ‘subjectivity’ are represented to others. The accounts that
people give for what they do may or may not correspond to what they actually
think about those things. But the ‘discovery’ or ‘production’ of meaning is a
D
necessary aspect of the scientific study of human psychology.
3) Specificity
/ the level of analysis and the claims that are made from work in a
TE
particular domain needs to be stated. Qualitative research often engages in
intensive case studies that are not directly extrapolated to populations, or in
studies of collective activity that are not directly extrapolated to individual
members. The scientific task in this work is to account for specific nature and
EC

limits of the account, and for what may be learnt from it.

The old laboratory-experimental ‘paradigm’ of research in psychology was, Harré

argues, ‘pre-scientific’, and the task that quantitative researchers face now is how to
R

account for the reflexive capacity of human beings, the meaningful nature of the data
they produce and the way that claims are made about individuals from aggregated
R

descriptions of behaviour from particular populations. There are some possibilities of

very good innovative research in this tradition that addresses itself to these issues and
O

to the guidelines outlined in this paper.

C

to how this research is being carried out and they are treated as mere objects by tradi-
N

in whose interests. tional psychological research. The key ques-

Secondly, qualitative research has opened tion here is how the different positions that
U

up a series of questions about the participa- are brought to bear on the research throw
tion of those who are studied and whether new light on key issues. We might ask our
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x]
6 I Parker
coresearchers (our ‘subjects’) to respond to
the analysis, and this may be with the aim
of securing respondent validation (to con-
firm certain interpretations) or to encourage
disagreement (and to raise alternative inter-
pretations). These options, however morally
compelling, cannot apply to all kinds of
qualitative research, especially where the
analysis of meaning does not aim to
privilege the immediate perspective of the
speaker (Wilkinson and Kitzinger, 1997).
Most forms of discourse analysis, for exam-
ple, need to clarify why it would not be
appropriate to add further accounts to the
layers of interpretation they have con-
structed in their readings of the texts (Bur-
man, 2003).
Thirdly, however tempting it is to claim
that the research has provided a clearer or
more superior view of what is going on,
we need to hesitate a moment and explore
what grounds we have for that claim. We
may use a variety of different methods
that help us to ‘triangulate’ our inquiry,
and qualitative researchers may do this to
show the different ways in which an
issue might be understood. This may either
be with the aim of arriving at a
EC
common view or alternatively to illustrate
the intrinsic complexity of the issue (Tin-
dall, 1994). If there was really a definite
explanation then the assessment of research
R
would be quite simple, and would revolve
around the brutal question as to whether the
R
researcher has got it right or wrong
(in which case they pass or fail the evalua-
O
tion). Processes of ‘triangulation’ of
research, however, are better used in such a
C
way that alternative explanations may
coexist, and then the question to be
N
addressed by the researcher is how
their own particular interpretations can be
U
justified and what the consequences would
be of taking them seriously.
Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9
These questions about ‘neutrality’, ‘con-
firmation’ of findings and the idea that there
is a ‘definitive’ account draw attention to
the contested nature of qualitative research.
What this ‘quality’ amounts to is a question
of debate, as we note in Box 2.
Guidelines
exceptions

/ the rules and the
F
Three overarching criteria for good research
O
can be identified, but we need these to be
able to operate in ways that are not fixed in
O
stone (that is, they may be reflexively
employed or challenged depending on the
kind of study). In each case, then, we
PR
should value each criteria and each excep-
tion.
First, with respect to the grounding of the
work in existing research, this means
D
that the work should identify existing lines
of research around the issue and
TE
locate itself, but there may be cases when
absences in the research literature are
important and so the research will have
to address these (e.g., Phoenix, 1994). If it
were not possible to identify an absence
and explore why that were so, no new
objects of psychological research would
ever appear.
Secondly, with respect to coherence in
the argument of the study, this means that
there could be a cumulative linear narrative
which moves clearly from point to point to
arrive at conclusions, but there may be
cases where a more deliberately open frag-
mented narrative will be more appropriate
(e.g., Curt, 1994). The standard format of a
research report is a secure framework for
many writers, but it is itself a particular
genre of writing that can turn into a con-
straint and inhibit innovative work.
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x] Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:9

Criteria for qualitative research in psychology 7

Box 2. Open questions about quality

It is crucial to the enterprise of scientific work generally, and qualitative research in

particular, that the way we go about it is open to debate. Here are some questions for
which there are no clear answers and much disagreement.

1) What counts as good? (a) It corresponds to the norms of established scientific study.
(b) It will improve the lives of those who participated. (c) It is intrinsically
interesting and will provoke and satisfy those who are curious about the questions
posed.
2) Who should it be for? (a) It should be directly accessible to ordinary people outside
psychology. (b) It should contribute to the accumulating body of knowledge for the

F
use of other researchers. (c) Those who participated should gain something from it
in exchange for their time.

O
3) What counts as analysis? (a) A careful redescription using some categories from a
particular framework. (b) The discovery of something that can be empirically

O
confirmed as true or refused as false. (c) The emergence of a new meaning that was
entirely unexpected.

PR
4) What is the role of theory? (a) Mystification by those versed in jargon at the expense
of those who participated. (b) A necessary antidote to the commonsense and often
mistaken explanations for human behaviour. (c) The space for thinking afresh about
something.
D
This is not a multiple-choice test (which, of course, would be a most inappropriate
assessment for qualitative research). These open questions are puzzles for us and for our
TE
colleagues, and good research does also puzzle about them a bit further and position
itself in relation to them.
EC

Thirdly, with respect to the accessibility This is an issue that connects with
R

of presentation, clearly accounting for the the commonsense views of the self
conceptual background, research process that circulate in psychology, views that
R

and new perspectives (which may include may only be opened up for study by
accounts, knowledge, interpretations) refusing to speak those descriptions
O

are important. We may also want the work of ourselves that everyone takes for
to be accessible to those outside the granted (Terre Blanche and Durrheim,
C

research community, but there may be times 1999).

when difficult arguments make difficult The questions in Box 3, which explicates
N

reading. With respect to each of these, the ‘parameters of criteria’, are designed to
the study should make clear by what kinds draw attention to assumptions about
U

of rules it should be evaluated, and warrant research that usually govern quantitative
the following or breaking of these rules. research in psychology, but these main-
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x] Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:10

8 I Parker

Box 3. Explicating the parameters of criteria

These points summarize key questions that should be considered in the process of
carrying out qualitative research in psychology.

1) Objective?
/ Have you described what theoretical resources you draw upon to make
your subjectivity into a useful device and how those resources impact on the
research?
2) Valid?
/ Have you made clear the ways in which the account you give is distinctive
and paradigmatically different from other things that might be categorized along
with it?
3) Reliable?
/ Have you traced a process of change in your understanding and other

F
people’s understanding of the topic and explored how views of it may continue to
change?

O
4) Neutral?
/ Is there a reflexive analysis which steps back from the account you have
given and allows the reader to see something of the institutional vantage point from

O
which the story is told?
5) Confirmed?
/ Is there an attempt to bring research participants’ responses to the

PR
analysis into the study, and an attempt both to clarify the ways in which they agree
and disagree with what you say and to analyse why and how these different
responses may have come about?
6) Definitive?
/ Is there an attempt to ‘triangulate’ views of the topic and a decision
about whether this triangulation should be taken as arriving at a clearer view or an
D
explication of what is apparent from different vantage points?
7) Established?
/ If you did not study and refer to an established line of research, did
TE
you discuss the reasons why this may not appear in the research literature?
8) Coherent?
/ If you did not organize your material in a coherent way, did you say
why you chose a different kind of narrative to display your research and thus
persuade the reader that this work is worthwhile?
EC

9) Accessible?
/ If you did not arrive at something that could be easily accessible to
someone in the discipline or outside it, did you say why your work needed to be
more complex?
10) Psychological?
/Have you made clear that the theoretical or methodological frame-
R

work you have used is from within the domain of psychology, or made clear how the
topic is usually understood by psychology, or examined what the implications
R

might be for psychology of what you have done?

O

C

stream assumptions are placed ‘under Psychological questions / including

erasure’. They are marked in this way questioning psychology
N

precisely to remind you that any checklist

always need to be challenged as such if the Qualitative research is sometimes opposed
U

guidelines are to be flexible enough to leave by quantitatively inclined assessors in the

space for innovations in research practice. discipline on the grounds that it is not
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x]
‘really’ psychology. This objection to quali-
tative research is sometimes raised along-
side the argument that psychology should
be a ‘science’ (a topic addressed in Box 1).
This opposition between science and non-
science that is used by some quantitative
psychologists tends to reinforce an unne-
cessarily firm distinction between quantita-
tive and qualitative approaches, a
distinction that has itself been challenged
by the most innovative research in psychol-
ogy over the years. We need to remember
that many kinds of research in psychology
have developed through interdisciplinary
work which has disturbed the boundaries
between the discipline of psychology and
other disciplines, and that research in other
countries which is carried out in psychol-
ogy departments often draws on a range of
different theoretical frameworks and meth-
odological approaches. Broadly speaking,
though, qualitative research may defend its
place in the discipline on one or more of the
following grounds.
First, the theory used or challenged in the
study may be from within psychology. Here
we would expect that the theories con-
cerned are outlined and referenced so that
EC
a judgement can be made of the pertinence
of the critique to the study. Secondly, the
topic being explored or reframed may
usually be included within the domain of
R
psychology. Here we would expect an out-
line of the relevant literature on the topic
R
and some questions to be raised about that
literature that pave the way for the particu-
O
lar research questions in the study. Thirdly,
that there are psychological implications of
C
the research clearly stated at the outset.
Here we may expect that the relevant issues
N
concerning ‘psychology’, ‘experience’ or
‘subjectivity’ are outlined and the conse-
U
quences of adopting one or other of these
descriptive terms would be explored.
Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:10
Criteria for qualitative research in psychology 9
Three core principles are worth bearing in
mind as we orientate ourselves toward good
research in psychology that is able to
encompass work that is critical of the
underlying assumptions that psychologists
usually make about what counts as good
research. These principles, outlined by qua-
litative researchers in the discipline who
have helped to push the limits of what was
acceptable under the old ‘laboratory-experi-
mental’ paradigm, help set out a way of
thinking about how supervisors might facil-
F
itate and evaluate student work.
The first is that of ‘apprenticeship’. This
O
notion draws attention to the way that
students learn to speak the language of the
O
particular discipline or craft they are learn-
ing, and how they set out any innovations
PR
against the background of those existing
practices. We are keen to emphasize that
qualitative work does not at all mean dis-
regarding or throwing away the knowledge
that has been accumulated by psychology.
D
The question we are concerned with is how
the researcher positions themselves against
TE
that knowledge. To put the point at its most
extreme, and for those who really have
concluded that this knowledge is useless,
we still expect that the sceptic is able to
weave an impression of excellence. Un-
thinkingly reproducing the language of the
discipline regardless of the research para-
digm that has been adopted is an error
(Burman, 1998).
The second principle is that of ‘scholar-
ship’. We encourage the student to be
immersed in the relevant debates so that
they are able to make an argument for what
they find to be valuable or unsatisfactory
about them. A degree of rhetorical, some-
times polemical, skill is required in order to
construct an argument that both marshals
evidence and steers a course through de-
bates in order to persuade the reader. To put
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x] Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:10

10 I Parker

this point at its most extreme, and for those
who feel passionately that what psychology
says is wrong, we still expect that this
opponent of mainstream psychology is
able to find some grounds from which
they can reason with their audience. All
good scientific research is driven by a
passion to explore particular questions and
to persuade others of a point of view (Billig,
1988).
The third principle concerns ‘innova-
tion’. There is a corresponding danger here
the case that a particular methodology
becomes the topic of the research, but
even in this case there is a research question
(which focuses on the way something is
investigated). To put this point in the most
extreme way, for those who do want to break
all the rules about methodology that they
have learned in the discipline, we still
expect that this anarchic position is able to
show that it knows very well what it is
pitting itself against so that it does not let
those who simply repeat the tried and tested

F
of ‘methodolatry’, which is that the way in rules of research off the hook. Those who
which the research is designed and carried have simply refused the rules of method

O
out takes precedence and the actual re- without careful argument for the position
search question gets lost. It may indeed be they take and why are all the more likely to

O
PR
Box 4. Don’t stop there! Beyond criteria

The best research goes beyond even these criteria to open up something new, so that the
work is innovative not only with respect to the content of the study (what has been
studied and what has been discovered) but also with respect to its form (how the
D
research questions were explored and how they were interpreted). Three watchwords for
opening the way to the best research are:
TE
1) Apprenticeship
/ the ability to use existing resources and position oneself within or
in relation to a certain tradition of work. A good competent research report (for a
lower second class grade) is one that displays an understanding of the key issues
EC

outlined in this paper and which has thought through the specific questions that the
guidelines raise.
2) Scholarship
/ showing that some underlying premises and assumptions in existing
relevant studies have been grasped. A very good research report (for an upper
R

second class grade) is one that brings that understanding to bear in order to
construct an argument, perhaps polemical, against the limits of methodological
R

procedures that may inhibit new ways of doing research.

3) Innovation
/ producing work that may transform the coordinates by which a
O

problem is usually understood. An excellent research report (for a first class grade)
is one that ‘discovers’ or ‘produces’ something new and which is able to reflexively
C

embed its account of what has happened within and against usual taken-for-granted
practices in research.
N

Use the guidelines insofar as they help, but if necessary challenge the ground-rules
U

that we have used to formulate them!.

 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x]
Criteria for qualitative research in psychology
fall foul of ‘methodolatry’ (e.g., Reicher,
2000).
These three principles are summed up in
Box 4.
This paper covers the terrain over which
qualitative researchers in psychology may
have to travel, and its aim is not so much to
be prescriptive as to clearly outline the
range of issues that researchers (whether
qualitative and quantitative) need to tackle.
The paper focuses on psychology, but also
has strong affinity with debates in qualita-
tive evaluation produced by the National
Health Service Research and Development
Programme (Murphy et al ., 1998) and for
the Cabinet Office (Spencer et al ., 2003). It
is important for researchers to bear these
issues in mind when, for example, they do
or do not formulate ‘hypotheses’ before they
carry out their study, when they do or do
not follow a series of methodological steps,
or when they do or do not separate analysis
from discussion in the written report. Quan-
titative researchers too-often follow well
established procedures without reflecting
upon what they are doing and why. We
should not encourage qualitative research-
ers to make the same mistake. Qualitative
research often seems more difficult because
EC
it does require a higher level of reflection
and accountability (to oneself, to colleagues
and to others), and this is why an appar-
ently simple issue like ‘criteria’ involves
R
some sustained conceptual work that
should then find its way into the writing
R
of the report.
O
References
C
Billig, M. 1988: Methodology and scholarship in
N
understanding ideological explanation. In
Antaki, C., editor, Analysing everyday ex-
U
planation: a casebook of methods . London:
Sage.
Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:10
11
Burman, E. 1998: Disciplinary apprentices: ‘qua-
litative methods’ in student psychological
research. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology 1, 25
/45.
Burman, E. 2003: Discourse analysis means
analysing discourse: some comments on
Antaki, Billig, Edwards and Potter ‘Dis-
course analysis means doing analysis: a
critique of six analytic shortcomings’, Dis-
course Analysis Online .
Capdevila, R. 2003: Marginality and methodol-
ogy: negotiating legitimacy, ISTP, June.
F
Curt, B.C. 1994: Textuality and tectonics: trou-
bling social and psychological science .
O
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y., editors, 2000: Hand-
O
book of qualitative research , second edition.
London: Sage.
PR
Dorling, D. and Simpson, S., editors, 1999:
Statistics in society: the arithmetic of poli-
tics . London: Arnold.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C.T. and Rennie, D.L. 1999:
Evolving guidelines for publication of qua-
D
litative research studies in psychology and
related fields, British Journal of Clinical
TE
Psychology 38, 215
/29.
Gough, B., Lawton, R., Madill, A. and Stratton, P.
2003: Guidelines for the supervision of
undergraduate qualitative research in psy-
chology. http://www.psychology.ltsn.ac.uk/
reports.html. Accessed 27 October 2003.
Hartsock, N. 1987: The feminist standpoint:
developing the ground for a specifically
feminist historical materialism. In Harding,
S., editor, Feminism and methodology: so-
cial science issues . Bloomington, IN: Indi-
ana University Press.
Harré, R. 2004: Staking our claim for qualitative
psychology as science, Qualitative Research
in Psychology 1, *.
Hollway, W. 1989: Subjectivity and method in
psychology: gender, meaning and science .
London: Sage.
Kagan, C. and Burton, M. 2000: Prefigurative
action research: an alternative basis for
 Y:/Arnold/QP/articles/qp010oa/qp010oa.3d[x] Wednesday, 25th February 2004 9:44:10

12 I Parker

critical psychology? Annual Review of Cri-
tical Psychology 2, 73
/87.
Kitzinger, C. and Wilkinson, S. 1997: Validating
women’s experience? Dilemmas in feminist
research. Feminism and Psychology 7, 566
/
74.
Maso, I. 2003: Necessary subjectivity: exploiting
researchers’ motives, passions and preju-
dices in pursuit of answering ‘true’ ques-
tions. In Finlay, L. and Gough, B., editors,
Reflexivity: a practical guide for researchers
in health and social sciences . Oxford: Black-
from a feminist perspective . London: Taylor
& Francis.
Reicher, S. 2000: Against methodolatry: some
comments on Elliott, Fischer and Rennie.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology 39, 1
/
6.
Rose, N. 1985: The psychological complex: psy-
chology, politics and society in England
1869
/1939 . London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Salmon, P. 2003: How do we recognise good
research? The Psychologist 16, 24
/27.

F
well. Seale, C. 1999: The quality of qualitative re-
Murphy, E., Dingwall, R. Greatbach, D., Parker, S. search . London: Sage.

O
and Watson, P. 1998: Qualitative research Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Dillon, L.
methods in health technology assessment: a 2003: Quality in qualitative evaluation: a

O
review of the literature. Health Technology framework for assessing research evidence .
Assessment 2(16). Retrieved 18 November, Retrieved 24 November, 2003, from:
2003, from: www.nechta.org www.policyhub.gov.uk

Nightingale, D.J. and Cromby, J., editors, 1999:
Social constructionist psychology: a critical
analysis of theory and practice . Bucking-
ham: Open University Press.
Parker, I. 1999: Qualitative data and the subjec-
tivity of ‘objective’ facts. In Dorling, D. and
Simpson, L., editors, Statistics in society: the
arithmetic of politics. London: Arnold.
Phoenix, A. 1994: Practising feminist research:
the intersection of gender and ‘race’ in the
EC
PR
Terre Blanche, M. and Durrheim, K., editors,
1999: Research in practice: applied methods
for the social sciences . Cape Town: UCT
Press. D
Tindall, C. 1994: Issues of evaluation. In Banister,
P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. and
TE
Tindall, C. 1994: Qualitative methods in
psychology: a research guide . Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Wilkinson, S. 1988: The role of reflexivity in

research process. In Maynard, M. and Pur- feminist psychology, Women’s Studies Inter-
vis, J., editors, Researching women’s lives national Forum 11:493
/502.

About the author

R

IAN PARKER is Professor of Psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University. He has been

teaching qualitative methods for over 20 years and is author of numerous books on
R

innovative research and radical theory, including Qualitative Methods in Psychology (with
Banister, Burman, Taylor and Tindall, published by Open University Press in 1994) and
O

Critical Discursive Psychology (Palgrave, 2002). His next method book is Qualitative
Psychology: Introducing Radical Research (Open University Press, 2005).
C
N
U

View publication stats